The Philosophy Forums at OnlinePhilosophyClub.com aim to be an oasis of intelligent in-depth civil debate and discussion. Topics discussed extend far beyond philosophy and philosophers. What makes us a philosophy forum is more about our approach to the discussions and debates than what subject is being debated. Common topics include but are absolutely not limited to neuroscience, psychology, sociology, cosmology, religion, political theory, ethics, and so much more.

Use this philosophy forum to discuss and debate general philosophy topics that don't fit into one of the other categories.

This forum is NOT for factual, informational or scientific questions about philosophy (e.g. "What year was Socrates born?"); such homework-help-style questions can be asked and answered on PhiloPedia: The Philosophy Wiki. If your question is not already answered on the appropriate PhiloPedia page, then see How to Request Content on PhiloPedia to see how to ask your informational question using the wiki.

I had to google the questioning whether there are factual errors. I think there are fallacies and contradictions. KM tweaked ideas from Hegel before he did any studies and it seems as the observations were shoehorned or massaged so that they would fit. On one hand he understood the the importance of incentives for people to work. He wrote a letter questioning the idea that wealth or whatever should be given in equsl amount even to those that do not work. He also wanted to abolish private property, even money, which makes it difficult to understand how incentives should work. The ideas about thesises and antithesises created a false dilemma fallacy. I think he spent too mich time in the English Library and not enough time with people involved with the subject that he wrote about. Even though he predicted instability for the cspitalist system, I very much doubt that it was a novel idea. He completely failed to predict political democracy. One has to remember that he was born 200 years back in time.

I think that people like Lenin and Honecker would say that they put the theories in to practice. Yes, they were totalitarism but that was their understanding of proletarian dictatorship. And I’m not aware of any communists at the time that felt that the ussr wasn’t a true attempt to put theory into practice. Only Marx himself could provide a definitive answer.

What would it take, in your opinion, to put theory into practice?

Which are these (squashed by the US) countries where some political success had been achieved? Some latin american countries maybe?

I will have a look at the link that you provided. If interesting, I shall comment. As for the seventh day adventists, the ”glue” is a shared belief which is much stronger than the belief that people should be united because they are ”proletarians”.

I think that people like Lenin and Honecker would say that they put the theories in to practice.

Whatever they may have thought is irrelevant to question of whether the theory itself was rigorously tested. Nor are their results anything like "obvious outcomes".

And I’m not aware of any communists at the time that felt that the ussr wasn’t a true attempt to put theory into practice.

By the time power was consolidated under the new regime, there were no communists. They were the first people to be purged in every country taken over by Stalin and Mao.

Only Marx himself could provide a definitive answer.

I doubt it. He knew Germany and England, not Russia or China.

What would it take, in your opinion, to put theory into practice?

First: the longevity of those communes I linked. Second: a democratic election resulting in the victory of the freely-constituted communist party, with no meddling, intimidation or economic pressure from outside, and two terms of its tenure.

Which are these (squashed by the US) countries where some political success had been achieved? Some latin american countries maybe?

Obviously, Latin America, where the US has had its fat thumb up every ass for two centuries.

As for the seventh day adventists, the ”glue” is a shared belief which is much stronger than the belief that people should be united because they are ”proletarians”.

But most Americans call themselves Christian. Wouldn't you expect them to share the ideal promulgated by their putative saviour?
Is it significant how you identify the ideological glue? People don't identify as "proletarian" - an outmoded term. There used to be a working class, though, which showed a good deal of solidarity in the labour union movement. Any idea what happened to it?

I don’t see how it could be irrelevant what they thought. These were people that were communists and implemented the way they understood it. The state took over every business there was without any compensation as called for by marx.

Karl marx knew germany and england but he also felt that his ideas could be implemented world-wide. He may have had an opinion as to whether proletarian dictatorship had been implemented correctly.

I meant that there were communists in countries like the US and europe at the time. I don’t think these people expressed any objections to the creation of ussr. I’m not sure what you mean.

I had a look at some of these communities given by your link. They are very small communities within larger communities, very different from what karl marx had in mind. Most of them have no more than, say, 10 members. What you get is an extended family, united by religious beliefs and/or being vegetarian. You can join and you can leave.

I’m not particularly aware to what extent these latin american countries have been successful under some form of socialism/communism. Venezuela hasn’t. Cubans became litterate but so have people in other countries.

I’m not religious, i consider myself to be agnostic. I really don’t know to what extent Christians or other religious groups are willing to share ideals the way you suggest.

There is ideological glue as well as other kinds of glue. A family is a glue. As is religion. It may not be strong at all. Marx didn’t consider religion at all.

I think that Marx believed that people would identify themselves as proletarians and that it would provide the glue needed for socialism to work. I think it wasn’t so.

Your last statement about solidarity lost, I have no idea. I think this discussion has strayed away, the question asked is whether marxism is a science or a theory.